isoHunt Tries The 'Just A Search Engine' Defense
from the let's-see-how-this-works dept
isoHunt, one of the BitTorrent tracker sites that the MPAA generated publicity for with a lawsuit a couple of years ago, has filed a response to the judge's request for more information on how BitTorrent and BitTorrent tracker sites work. The MPAA, of course, positioned isoHunt as a den of piracy. But isoHunt, following the lead of TorrentSpy, has pointed out to the judge that it's no different than a search engine, indexing the various BitTorrent files out there. isoHunt, itself, is never involved in copyright infringement and, of course, there are plenty of authorized BitTorrent trackers out there. It will be interesting to see a judge finally rule on this issue. TorrentSpy lost its case, but not over this issue. In that case, the guys at TorrentSpy destroyed evidence -- which is a huge no-no. Hopefully a judge recognizes why search engines shouldn't be blamed for infringement that results from the use of the website.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bittorrent, search engines, trackers
Companies: isohunt, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not a tracker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a tracker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a tracker
Nice page to bookmark:
http://www.google.com/help/features.html#pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a tracker
Many argue that the pirates aren't the one's causing the problems...
Many argue that sites like ISOHunt provide a valuable service to those looking for legitimate torrents.
One has to wonder how those folks looking for legitimate torrents on ISOHunt feel about the pirates who have now caused ISOHunt to be singled out and likely soon to be shut down.
One then has to wonder how much we'll love those harmless little pirates when they all migrate to Google, skewing it's "major" usage and getting it shut down as well.
One might begin to wish these harmless little pirates would stick to their own little "darknets" and leave the rest of the internet out of their tiresome little games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a tracker
Us real pirates do stick to our darknets, it's the rest of you wannabe newbie pirates that rape the shit out of public torrent sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google next?
This would be, I think, hitting the proverbial nail on the head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google next?
ISOHunt:
Percentage of searches for copyrighted material: 99%
Google:
Percentage of searches for copyrighted material: 6%
This is why Napster lost their case. The vast majority of use was for infringing purposes. This same argument spells doom for ISOHunt, but *not* for Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google next?
Percentage of searches for copyrighted material: 99%
Google:
Percentage of searches for copyrighted material: 6%
Have a citation on that? You do realize that nearly all searches on Google are for copyrighted material? Just about any new content is covered by copyright from the moment it's created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google next?
Switch "copyrighted content" for "infringing purposes".
You can mince words all you want, the point remains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google next?
Ok. So where does the law include a %? What is the cutoff according to the law?
You can mince words all you want, the point remains.
Does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google next?
To most folk, that means over 50%.
Law? None to speak of. Case-Law? One need only look as far as Napster. That is what lost them the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google next?
Miss the first post where the Napster case is specifically mentioned as where the majority/percentage bit came from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a search engine?
If the judge can be convinced of this, it simply becomes a matter of deciding if isoHunt was pro-actively encoraging filesharing or not. isoHunt have their 'takedowns on request' policies as a defence, but its proven far less effective then Youtube and the judge could decide that they arn't doing enougth in comparison to regulate the service.
But then, how do you regulate the internet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a search engine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a search engine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a search engine?
I know it was rhetorical, but...
If they designed a vehicle which was suited to, and used by the vast majority of operators, to kill, yes, one could easily go after Ford.
Claiming they cannot control their own network doesn't help...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just a search engine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True Statement - although many times I end up art ISOhunt, but not always.
I just found Google to be better at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not *just* a search engine
But the bigger service it is offering mankind is the aggregation service or acting as a bulletin board for people to post and locate trackers. For sure, the content does not reside on isohunt, but its an information broker which is helping people share copyrighted stuff. And that might be struck down.
I'm of course praying that its not closed down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
about that "evidence" you speak of...
That brings me to another complaint, "Piracy" is ill-termed. It is equivalent children stealing candy, not Barbary Pirates. Whither the ESA, RIAA, MPAA -- whatever. They spend more on prosecuting so-called Piracy than they ever get back. The only reason it makes sense, in many cases, is as a convenient scapegoat that they can cite to investors/etc as to why they're loosing money. I just find it interesting that, while obviously troublesome to see a product you have worked on being taken, and used for free, the companies that are most vociferous in prosecuting "piracy" are also the ones posting the largest losses. Never mind that the numbers these groups trot out always assumes that every copy misappropriated is a sale lost. Hmm. By that logic, Cola and snack food companies should be loosing sales every time they hand out their products for free. Yet, somehow it doesn't seem to work that way. SOME of those samples of the product lead to sales, the rest result in someone trying a product that, if they had had to pay for it, they would not have tried out.
Nope, it couldn't possibly be a failure to adapt a business model to changing market and consumer demands. Never mind that, as one example, book publisher Baen Books has a free library, full of complete copies of their authors books completely accessible to the public, DRM free, in several formats, and is making a killing with it, with much of the contents of that _FREE_ library in back order status quite often, in spite of the free, and unrestricted access and format.
I suppose what I am most irked about is the whole "treat the customer as a criminal" mindset that exists throughout most of the "content" industry.
I suppose it doesn't matter. I will simply refuse to purchase products and services that lock me down, and treat me like a thief-in-waiting. I know many others who do the same. As long as the various "content providers" choose to treat me as a criminal just waiting to bilk them out of a sale, I will treat them to the absence of my money.
Capitalism at its finest, money talks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: about that "evidence" you speak of...
Yes, if you click through and read the earlier article, I discuss that.
But that wasn't all. They also destroyed specific forum posts. *That* was bad. I agreed and had written vehemently against the judge considering the failure to log data as being destruction of evidence.
But there was other evidence that *was* purposely destroyed.
That was a huge mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
spears filetype:mp3
And you get no hits at all. Do they honestly expect me to believe that there isn't a single MP3 copy of Britney's song on the entire web?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do a generic search for filetype:mp3 and take a look at the top right corner:
Results 1 - 10 of about 269 for filetype:mp3. (0.25 seconds)
To do what you wanted to do, search for spears mp3. There's your 1.5 million results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a few thoughts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]